9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 102 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271AAA - undisclosed income was admitted during search - According to the AO, bifurcation of the income, head-wise and year-wise, was not given in this statement under section 132(4) of the Act. Year-wise and assessee-wise break up was given by the group subsequently - Held that - Sub-section 2 provides that sub-section 1 of Section 271AAA would not be applicable upon an assessee if he fulfills the following conditions viz. (a) that the assessee in the course of search, in a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132 admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which such income has been derived, and (b) substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, and (c) pays the tax together with interest, if any, in respect of undisclosed income. As far as the fulfillment of clause (c) is concerned, there is not dispute between the parties. Similarly, assessee has disclosed the income during the course of search. The dispute between the parties is whether the assessee has specified manner in which such income has been derived and substantiate the manner in which undisclosed income was derived. The AO has simply observed that the assessee has not admitted the income himself and has not disclosed the manner. The income was disclosed by the son of the assessee. It is pertinent to say that the statement of Shri Rajesh M. Shah was recorded on behalf of group itself. He has specified the income of ₹ 25 crores not only assessable in his hand, but pointed out that it will be allocated between different entities and the persons. He has also disclosed the manner in which the income was derived. All these aspects have been specifically considered by the ld.First Appellate authority in the finding extracted supra. After perusal of the finding of the ld.CIT(A), see no reasons to interfere in it. - Decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Compliance with conditions under section 271AAA(2) for immunity from penalty. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Penalty under Section 271AAA: The Revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad, which deleted the penalty of ?15 lakhs imposed by the AO under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was related to the assessment year 2012-13 following a search and seizure operation on 9.8.2011 in the Vasanwala group of cases. During the search, statements were recorded under section 132(4) where undisclosed income of ?25,00,35,469/- was admitted. The assessee filed a return declaring ?1,50,52,490/- including unaccounted income of ?1.50 crores, which was accepted by the AO in the assessment order under section 143(3). Despite this, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAA, arguing that the assessee failed to disclose the manner of earning the undisclosed income and to substantiate the manner as required by law. 2. Compliance with Conditions under Section 271AAA(2): The key area of dispute was whether the assessee fulfilled the conditions under section 271AAA(2) to qualify for immunity from penalty. These conditions include: - Admission of undisclosed income during the search and specification of the manner in which it was derived. - Substantiation of the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. - Payment of tax and interest on the undisclosed income. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had indeed disclosed the manner of earning the income and had substantiated it. The CIT(A) noted that during the search, the statement under section 132(4) indicated that the income was derived from various projects and transactions, and this was further detailed in subsequent statements and submissions. The CIT(A) referenced several judicial precedents, including the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahendra C. Shah, which supported the view that substantial compliance with the conditions of section 271AAA(2) was sufficient for immunity from penalty. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO's insistence on further details about the manner of earning the income was unnecessary, especially since the income was disclosed, taxes were paid, and the AO accepted the income during the assessment without any modifications. The CIT(A) emphasized that the AO did not bring any positive evidence to disprove the assessee's claims or the substantiation provided. Conclusion: The Tribunal, after reviewing the records and the findings of the CIT(A), agreed with the CIT(A)'s conclusion. The Tribunal noted that the income was disclosed during the search, the manner of earning was specified, and taxes were paid. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, thereby upholding the deletion of the penalty. Order: The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the Court on 27th July 2016 at Ahmedabad.
|
